Talk:Romanization of Persian

Merge with IPA2

There's a proposal to merge the article IPA2 into this article.

Opinions are welcome. --Amir E. Aharoni 08:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Notability and usage of the described systems

Hello, I oppose merging Uni-Pers with this article. the article should talk generally about Romanization of Persian, While Uni-Pers is only one of the ways to Romanize Persian. In addition, I think Uni-Pers deserves a separate page, because it has a reasonable character-set. User_talk:I_masoomi

I wholeheartedly disagree. A page on Persian Romanization, and it should be inclusive of all standards. By suggesting that Uni-Pers deserves a separate page because it has a "reasonable character set", are you suggesting that other standards, such as that used by the Library of Congress is "unreasonable"? With all due respect, UniPers has limited use, as if you type the Latin character Z, you have no way of knowing which of the 4 letters in Perso-Arabic script has been transliterated.Jemiljan (talk) 15:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I am trying to improve the coverage of the Persian language here. I don't know the Persian language much, but i have a linguistic background, an besides, no-one except me is doing it. I am currently concerned with the issue of a Latin alphabet for Persian. Three proposals for a new Latin alphabet are discussed on Wikipedia: "UniPers", "IPA2" and "EuroFarsi".

UniPers seems to have the best coverage. However, on Wikipedia there are strict guidelines about the notability of a given subject. Sometimes it happens that enthusiasts of a subject will edit the article about it, while the subject itself is not notable outside a narrow group of people and is not suitable for an encyclopedia. For a writing system to be notable for an encyclopedia it should be used by a considerable group of people. Being described on one website is not enough. This is not a written guideline, but that's what i deduce from Wikipedia:Notability.

So - does anyone here use UniPers or know people who use it?

There is very little information about IPA2, a.k.a Pársik Except a link to its own website, PersianDirect.com . I haven't found that it is used anywhere except that website. (If you search Google for "IPA2 Pársik", you will mostly find information copied from Wikipedia.) I proposed it for deletion. Please correct me if i'm wrong.

There's no information about EuroFarsi in Wikipedia and there's only a link to http://www.eurofarsi.com/ . I could also find some info about it on Google, but it is hard for me to understand it, as i don't know Persian well. Do you know whether there are people who actually use this system? Or is it just a small group of dedicated people? --Amir E. Aharoni 07:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I also wish there was better information on the usage of these and other systems and hope it will be added.

However, Wikipedia covers many languages, scripts, and transliterations that have no current usage, and often never had significant usage.

Also, notability of one particular romanization is not the same as notability of the subject as a whole and the article. There are articles on romanization or transliteration of most non-Roman scripts and major languages using these scripts. --75.20.206.207 (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a good article about Romanization of Persian, but currently the opening paragraph is too generic and the rest of the article is about UniPers, which doesn't seem notable to me. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 08:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I envy those dealing with Chinese and Japanese for being able to deal with government-approved romanization schemes. Iran and Afghanistan do not have such schemes; Tajikistan, as far as I know, has decided to stay with the Cyrillic alphabet, which serves the language just as well. I speak Persian quite well, though not as a mother-tongue.
Both UniPers and Eurofarsi offer good solutions; UniPers is closer to Tajik conventions in Cyrillic. There are, however, several points to note:
1. Both schemes neglect orthography in Arabic script (but so does Turkish, and it may be a blessing not to distinguish between the three letters for s and between the four letters for z).
2. Romanizing means fixing vowel pronunciation, and most probably at the expense of lesser developed Dari (Persian in Afghanistan), where Iranian "goftim" (we said) gradually shifts into the Tajik and Classical pronunciation "guftêm", moving eastward. Afghan nationals may be forced to write according to Iranian standard.
3. Writing Persian in Latin characters may (but need not) be a form of opposition to the Iranian regime. Disdain for the Iranian government may show as a disdain for Islam and/or all things Arabic, including Arabic loanwords when talking, and now even the Arabic script. Therefore, Persian Romanization is not a politically neutral project, but will attract a host of dissidents and agitators, and later on probably trouble from the government of Iran.
I hope this helps in judging the situation! 79.208.76.7 (talk) 23:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)curryfranke

Yes, the gap between transliteration and transcription is wide for Persian, which is why I tried to include explicit discussion of the two terms in the article.

As for the political-religious issues... as the Shire Jama Ahmed article says, "Latin, laa diin". --JWB (talk) 01:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe in a change of script as a means of political agitation. Not nowadays. Don't you think the Iranian government could easily print the collected works of Khomeyni in UniPers if it wanted? Or do you want to make money by reprinting Sa'di, Hâfez, Moulavi, Jâmi, Nimâ, Hedâyat, Forugh, etc. in Latin characters?

And Latin, the official language of the Catholic church, does have a religious significance, and I feel it heavier on my head every year since the new pope is in power. More and more Latin pops up in church and reminds me of clerical domination.

So Latin script can be a sign of secularisation, like wet streets can be a sign of rain. But trying to secularise a country by turning its script into Latin is like pouring water on the street in order to make rain. If you change a script, you change a language, but not necessarily a country.

On the other hand, I would be glad to have a unified romanization scheme for Persian, just as for Chinese and Japanese. Curryfranke (talk) 20:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

These attempts to supplant Perso-Arabic script are IMO a form of "ethnic cleansing". If one wants to be "purely Persian" (whatever that means), then should there be a return to using Pahlavi scripts or even cunieform? You can be secular and still be able to acknowledge that Arabic has enriched Persian, just as Persian has enriched Arabic.Jemiljan (talk) 15:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

There actually already is an official Romanization scheme for Persian, and it can be found here: http://www.eki.ee/wgrs/rom1_fa.pdf. --Pare Mo (talk) 03:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, progress has gotten rid of the primary reasons for changing script to Latin - that in the past there was better technology for supporting Latin and little for the local script; and a large remaining population of illiterates who could benefit from a simpler script and were not educated in the old script. --JWB (talk) 20:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Whoever put up the merge tags for Universal Persian Alphabet actually had the right idea, in my opinion. Most of it is taken from the UniPers website itself and reads like an advertisement, and thus does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Actually, the Universal Persian Alphabet entry should just be deleted altogether and replaced with a redirect to the Romanization of Persian page. --Daniel Blanchette 19:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I second this. I note that a sentence on "Persá" has been added to the section on UniPers, but without any citation.Jemiljan (talk) 15:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

ط

Can it be explained why t̤ (t with two horizontal dots below) is sometimes encountered as a romanization of Persian ط, but this isn't mentioned in this article? 173.89.236.187 (talk) 23:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I have the same question. But this page deals with modern systems (from ~1960 onwards) and I saw "t̤" in a work from 1873 indicated it might be a very old system. On further digging, it looks like it's the "Jones transliteration" that isn't described on this page (but should be!). There's a table of the letters in his Grammar of the Persian language, p. 2 (9th ed. 1828). Jones himself died in 1794, so the system is rather old indeed! Inductiveload (talk) 11:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)